[TenTec] Re: Orion IP2 numbers

[Bill Tippett]

WA6HHQ wrote:
>After reading your postings to the Ten Tec reflector I became concerned 
>that we had an incorrect ARRL test number for the Orion's IP2 in our 
>table. In general we use the main review numbers to retain direct 
>comparisons between rigs, but I checked the IP2 numbers in the expanded 
>Orion test data this time to confirm this. On page 21 of the Expanded 
>Test-Results it shows the Orion second order intercept as 63 dBm. Where 
>did you see the 77/73 dBm numers?
>
>73, Eric  WA6HHQ

         Eric, it must have been a mistake at ARRL which was corrected after
the initial posting.  I checked the current online version and 63/63 is indeed
what it says, but the printed copy I made yesterday says 77/73 on the same
page 21.  Apparently the original QST numbers are correct so you should
leave your table as is.

         Regarding the 1 kHz IMD and BDR measurements, I was going by
what Mike KC1SX had told me in the past...namely that the swept plots
went down to 1 kHz minimum.  Therefore I simply picked the lowest point
on all the plots assuming that was 1 kHz in all cases.  As I pointed out
earlier, I have my doubts about several of these, especially the original
FT-1000MP report done in 1996.  And as I also pointed out, ARRL's test
of the new K2/100 should be more meaningful for post 3000 S/N K2's
with the crystal filter grounding modification.

         I didn't claim to read the data perfectly, but simply made my best
effort given the assumption I stated above.  I do feel the measurements
of BDR and IMD at 1 kHz spacings are VERY germane to conditions that
contesters often encounter.  Hopefully Mike KC1SX can help me with
the actual tabular measurements when he returns and I will correct any
errors in the 1 kHz comparisons.

         I also agree that it is very nice to see two American companies 
holding
the top receiver ratings.  Both Elecraft and Ten-Tec are to be commended for
your excellent customer responsiveness.  I personally am fed up with some
of your competitors turning out radios with very poor basic performance, but
loaded with glitzy whistles and bells that are more flash than substance.
Kudos to both you and Ten-Tec for refocusing us on fundamental performance
issues!

                                         73,  Bill  W4ZV